Just days before thousands of Syrians in the United States were set to lose their legal protections, a federal judge in Manhattan halted the Trump administration’s plan to terminate temporary protected status (TPS) for more than 6,100 Syrian nationals. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla on November 19, 2025, has thrown a lifeline to Syrians who feared imminent deportation and job loss, and has reignited a fierce debate about America’s obligations to migrants fleeing war and disaster.
TPS is a humanitarian program enshrined in U.S. law, designed to shield people from countries wracked by conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions from deportation, while allowing them to work legally in the United States. The Obama administration first extended TPS to Syrians in 2012, after the eruption of a brutal civil war that would, over the next decade, devastate the country and displace millions. The program’s renewal has been a lifeline for Syrians in America ever since, but its future has hung in the balance as political tides shifted in Washington.
President Donald Trump, now in his second term, has made restricting TPS a central plank of his immigration agenda, arguing that the program has been overused and that many migrants no longer merit protection. Over the past several months, his administration has moved to terminate TPS for hundreds of thousands from countries including Nicaragua, Honduras, Nepal, Cameroon, Afghanistan, Haiti, and Venezuela. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the administration to revoke TPS for 600,000 Venezuelan migrants, setting a precedent that sent shockwaves through immigrant communities nationwide.
But Judge Failla’s ruling, delivered during a virtual court appearance, drew a sharp line. She found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem, had not made a good-faith effort to determine whether current conditions in Syria were safe before deciding to end TPS. Instead, she said, the decision appeared arbitrary and possibly motivated by politics, rather than by a careful review of facts on the ground. "It confounds logic that as to a group of disparate countries, with disparate basis of designation in different parts of the world, that in a few months all of them could resolve trouble that were so severe as to warrant TPS designation in the first instance," Failla remarked, as reported by Reuters.
The judge’s ruling applies to the 6,100 Syrians whose TPS was set to expire on November 21, 2025, as well as to 800 others awaiting approval of their TPS applications. For these individuals, the decision means temporary reprieve: they can continue to live and work legally in the U.S. while the legal challenge plays out. However, the Trump administration is expected to appeal, and the ultimate fate of Syrian TPS holders remains uncertain.
The administration’s move to terminate protections for Syrians was announced on September 19, 2025. In a notice published in the Federal Register, DHS argued that, despite "sporadic and episodic violence," Syria no longer met the criteria for ongoing armed conflict that would justify continued TPS. The Department also described Syria as a "hotbed of terrorism and extremism," maintaining that extending protections was contrary to U.S. interests. These assertions, however, were vigorously contested by advocates and the plaintiffs—seven Syrian migrants represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Muslim Advocates, and Van Der Hout LLP—who argued that the loss of TPS would cause them irreparable harm and that the DHS decision failed to adhere to federal guidelines and due process.
Lupe Aguirre, senior litigation attorney at IRAP, was blunt in her assessment: "The administration’s ongoing war on TPS is rooted in bias, not facts, and we will continue to fight this unlawful termination in court." According to Reuters, advocates for migrants have long maintained that TPS enrollees would be forced to return to dangerous conditions if protections ended, and that U.S. employers depend on their labor.
For its part, the Trump administration has defended its actions as fully within the law. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin criticized the judge’s decision, stating, "We disagree with this activist ruling, which defies the U.S. Supreme Court, exceeds the court’s jurisdiction, runs roughshod over the President’s Article II powers, and ignores the plain text of federal law." The administration points to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions as validation of its authority, though Failla countered that she could not rely on the Court’s stays because they did not provide a rationale. "I’m not privy to the specifics of the court’s stay decision and therefore must wait along with the rest of you to see how the court resolves these specific jurisdictional and merits issues," she said.
The political and legal wrangling over TPS for Syrians comes at a time of shifting dynamics in U.S.-Syria relations. Since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, the U.S. has taken steps to normalize relations with the new Syrian government. Most notably, ahead of Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s historic visit to the White House on November 10, 2025, the U.S. removed him from a foreign terrorist sanction list. The visit was marked by the sight of the Syrian flag flying outside the White House—a potent symbol of changing times, captured by Reuters photographer Kevin Lamarque.
Yet, despite these diplomatic overtures, the situation inside Syria remains fraught. While the Trump administration has argued that conditions have improved enough to justify ending TPS, many experts and advocates maintain that Syria is far from stable. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against DHS cited ongoing violence, humanitarian crises, and a lack of basic infrastructure as reasons why returning Syrians would face grave risks.
Judge Failla’s ruling also highlighted concerns that the Trump administration’s rapid-fire termination of TPS for multiple countries suggested a lack of individualized consideration, as required by federal law. She noted that, in a matter of months, protections had been stripped from migrants from a wide array of countries, raising questions about whether each case received the careful review it deserved.
The stakes are high for Syrians living in the United States under TPS. Many have built lives, families, and careers over more than a decade in the country. For them, the prospect of being forced to return to a homeland still reeling from war is daunting. At the same time, the broader debate over TPS touches on fundamental questions about America’s identity: Is the country a haven for those fleeing catastrophe, or is it tightening its doors in pursuit of a more restrictive immigration policy?
As the legal battle continues, Syrians in the U.S. are left in limbo, their futures hanging on the outcome of court proceedings and political negotiations. While Judge Failla’s ruling has bought them time, the uncertainty remains palpable. Both sides are preparing for a protracted fight, with the administration expected to appeal and advocates vowing to press their case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
The coming months will determine not only the fate of thousands of Syrians in the U.S., but also the direction of American immigration policy at a pivotal moment in global history. For now, the story is far from over.
